JUDGMENT :

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation, granted by the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi vide judgment dated 27th August, 2011 in Compensation Case No. 74/2000 whereby, the Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/-along with interest 6% p.a. from the date of closure of the evidence of the appellant.

3. The claimant, the appellant herein, filed a claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- on account of injuries sustained by him in the motor accident occurred on 24.4.1999. On the fateful day, the claimant was travelling in scooter from Ranchi to Sugnu village and when he reached near Bariatu, a Trekker bearing Registration No. BR 14P 1822, being driven in rash and negligent manner came from Booty side knocked him down. As a result of the said accident, the claimant sustained multiple grievous injuries and was moved to the hospital and was treated. It is pleaded that at the time of accident, the injured was 51 years of age and was serving in MES, Dipatoli Pump House and was getting a salary of Rs.5,500/-per month. It has further been pleaded that the multiple injuries resulted in fracture of radius and ulna bones. He also sustained head injuries and injury in eyes and has lost the vision of his right eye. It is also pleaded that the appellant has suffered permanent disability due to loss of vision of his right eye and fracture of his bones. Thus, he is entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- along with interest.

4. The owner of the vehicle appeared and contested the case. He admitted that the vehicle was fully insured with New India Assurance Company Limited and the policy was valid and effective from 29.12.1998 to 28.12.1999. It is pleaded that all the ancillary papers and permit of the vehicle was valid and was in order. It is also pleaded that the driver had valid licence to drive the vehicle. It is further pleaded that since the vehicle was insured, it is the Insurance Company, which has to indemnify the owner, and is liable to pay the compensation.

5. The Insurance Company appeared and took the ornamental plea of non-joinder of the parties like the driver of the offending vehicle and the owners and driver of the scooter was not paid party. He submits that later on, the investigator found that the claimant was performing his duty in MES at Dipatoli Pump House and it cannot be said that the claimant became disable. The fact that the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company at the time of accident, is admitted. However, the Insurance Company had taken a plea that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid and proper licence.

6. On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed six issues. The claimant examined three witnesses and he proved the copy of the FIR and the Chargesheet.

7. Opp. Party No.2 i.e. the Insurance Company though had not adduced any oral evidence but exhibited the driving licence verification report, Investigation report, photocopy of the DTO report, photocopy of the insurance policy, Photograph of the injured and the photocopy of the driving licence. The owner of the vehicle did not produce any evidence.

8. The Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Ranchi after considering the evidences laid by the parties has held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the trekker bearing registration No. BR 14P 1822. The tribunal also held that the vehicle was insured with New India Assurance Company Ltd. under the valid insurance policy during the time of accident. The court below held that there is nothing on record to suggest that the driver of the offending vehicle and the scooter were not having any valid driving licence. The court below also held that there is no evidence on record to suggest that any condition of the policy of the Insu